On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Guido van Rossum <[email protected]> wrote:
> I could not accept a PEP that leads to different datetime being considered
> == but having a different hash (*unless* due to a buggy tzinfo subclass
> implementation -- however no historical timezone data should ever depend on
> such a bug).
>
I agree, but my analysis demonstrates that we cannot fix hash to make an
arbitrary tzinfo work. ("Arbitrary" includes tzinfos with leap
microseconds and leap centuries.) We can probably come up with a good
enough hash if we restrict fold sizes to multiples of 15 min up to 1 hour
and locations to a hour boundaries.
My preferred solution would be to delegate hash calculation to tzinfo and
make it someone else's headache, but I know you don't like this solution.
> I'm much less concerned about < being intransitive in edge cases. I also
> don't particularly care about == following from the difference being zero.
>
I believe Tim does care about this. I did consider divorcing comparison
and arithmetic, but I think that led to problems with the total ordering.
Maybe we can make == differentiate between fold=0 and fold=1 at the expense
of not(a > b) and not(b<a) implying a==b?
I am not too hopeful. Messing with total ordering axioms is just as fatal
for binary searches as messing with hash invariants is for dictionary
lookups.
> Still, unless we're constrained by backward compatibility, I would rather
> not add equivalence between *any* two datetimes whose tzinfo is not the
> same object -- even if we can infer that they both must refer to the same
> instant.
>
Not even for fixed offset timezones? I am afraid this will break too many
programs.
_______________________________________________
Datetime-SIG mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/datetime-sig
The PSF Code of Conduct applies to this mailing list:
https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
